Once again, Chair, we just spoke to this. This specifies how indigenous knowledge would be considered in decision-making and reconcile this with the need to ensure this knowledge is protected. I think we've already had a discussion around that, so thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Obviously this is being brought on the basis of improving the panel reports. We support transparency generally, and I think that improving the reports is going to help us get there. This is one of several amendments in that respect.

This motion in particular is going to help address concerns related to reporting of the impact assessments that the agency undertakes. A lot of this is also about consistency, because the amendment calls for the report that's completed by the agency to include the same elements as those underlined in proposed section 51(d) and includes a requirement for recommendations with respect to mitigation measures and follow-up. I think that's a net improvement to the agency report process, and the public will appreciate the transparency aspect of all of that.

I have a question of clarification. Everywhere else in the bill we refer to “reasons”, and here Mr. Amos has chosen to say “rationale”. Is there a reason why we're using a completely different term here? Does it mean something different?

As you can tell, this is not intuitive to read because it talks about replacing lines and other lines. Let me explain the rationale of what this is doing. Again, this is based on advice from West Coast Environmental Law, in this case, dealing with what I think a lot of witnesses certainly agreed was an excess of ministerial discretion.

The exercise of discretion here in proposed section 31 is the minister's discretion to substitute another process and working with another level of jurisdiction. What the amendment that I'm proposing does is to tighten up and provide more guidance to the exercise of ministerial discretion, by removing the words “subject to sections 32 and 33” and instead saying, “if the minister is of the opinion for the process”.

Then, further down, I suggest inserting the conditions that are found in proposed section 33 in a more mandatory fashion. It becomes a condition baked into proposed section 31 on the exercise of the minister's discretion to substitute, so that the project meets the conditions set out in proposed section 33. It's a tightening up of discretion.